At 09:15 AM 2/27/2002, you wrote:
>I'm wondering if anyone uses song playback to call down their subject,
>shortening the sound hunt by drawing the animal in close and provoking a
>loud response? Playback of songs/calls is widely used in owl census
>(particularly for Northern Spotted Owl, for example where a very large are=
a
>must be surveyed with limited resources), and also to bring a bull elk in
>closer, trumpeting boldly, etc. It has also been so overused in the past
>that places like Cave Creek in the SW have signs posted "NO SOUND
>RECORDING."
>
>PLAYBACK seems to me like chumming for fish at best, or worse, out and out
>wildlife harassment. Is there anyone out there in the group that would lik=
e
>to defend 'playback' as a ethical technique? I'd be interested is hearing
>the views/confessions of someone who has done it or perhaps continues to d=
o
>it.
This is a subject that is sure to raise some controversy - it always does.=
There is apparently no really good study that definitively says whether
playback is harmful or not. Most in the group know that I do not condone
it, except under strict scientifically necessary guidelines, such as
necessary species surveys, etc. I do have an article that was sent to me by=
the author, Bill Gilbert, and which was written for the Nature Sounds
Society bulletin, Naturesounds.
Here it is in its entirety, long, but interesting:
>Dear Doug,
>
> I am forwarding you an electronic copy of my article on playback,
>written for the Nature Sounds Society bulletin, Naturesounds. If you choo=
se
>to, you may send it out to members of the Nature Recordists' website. I k=
now
>we respectfully disagree on some questions of the propriety of using recor=
ded
>playback in the field to attract birds or stimulate them to sing. On the
>other hand, we both seem to agree that it should not be used in some cases
>(endangered species, crowded birding areas), and should be used in other
>cases (scientific research, pest control).
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bill
>
>__________________________________________________________
>
>TO BE(GIN PLAYBACK) OR NOT TO BE(GIN PLAYBACK), THAT IS THE QUESTION!
>
>Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to conform to the wishes of outraged birde=
rs,
>and to cease using recorded playback, or to take arms against these purist=
s,
>and by blatantly using playback, silence them.
>
>By Bill Gilbert, Ph.D.
>
>
> As an avid birder in the eastern United States, your goal each
> spring is
>to see all of over thirty wood warbler species that regularly pass through
>your state. Thus one morning late in May you stand by the old canal bed,
>binoculars and tape recorder in hand, trying to sight the uncommon and
>secretive Connecticut Warbler, your last unchecked species. The
>long-abandoned canal, filled with burdock, poison hemlock, poison ivy,
>blackberries, nettle, and every other brand of scratching and urticating
>plant known to man, is a perfect haunt for your elusive prey. Impatiently
>you roll a tape of the Connecticut's song. No response! For over an hour
>you work the canal's edge. No response! Finally, from deep in the dark
>tangles, a response! The bird is shy, however, and comes no closer. So y=
ou
>plunge into the brush. Thorns tear your ankles and nettles numb your hand=
s,
>but you press on. Now, just beyond a huge black willow, your quarry answe=
rs.
> Peering around the trunk you finally spot it: another birder with a tap=
e
>recorder!
> This vignette, showing how birders can fool each other, highlights j=
ust
>one possible problem of using recorded playback in birding, nature recordi=
ng,
>and science. Perhaps because I am a birder, a recordist, and a scientist =
all
>in one, Natursounds Editor Sharon Perry asked me to write an authoritative
>article on this controversial issue. Little did she realize that I didn't
>know beans about the subject.
> But I am resourceful! I could draw on two decades of using playback=
in
>the field for bird banding and research, I knew the ornithological
>literature, and I knew how to use the library. I quickly went there to fi=
nd
>an authoritative article. In Current Contents, under keywords "playback" =
and
>"recorded playback," I found title after title on neat ways scientists use
>playback to solve taxonomic, acoustic, and behavioral problems, mostly wit=
h
>birds. Unfortunately, there was nothing about playback's dark underbelly.=
I
>then turned to my personal memory of the bird song and behavior literature
>dating back several decades. Unfortunately, my data banks came up empty.
> Back to square one and clueless, I contacted Sharon. I told her I =
had
>lots of great information on playback, but did she possibly know of any
>additional sources (just to cover my bases, of course). Sharon said the
>Nature Recordists Website recently had hosted a discussion thread on playb=
ack
>ethics, and she suggested that I check out the website, and download the
>relevent discussions. I was off and running (or at least I thought).
> Reviewing the interchanges of the playback ethics thread, I was stru=
ck
>by the thoughtfulness and sophistication of the discussion. Seven
>participants, including Doug Von Gausig (coordinator of the Website) and
>Bernie Krause came down on the side of using little if any playback for
>recreational/commercial purposes (e.g., attracting birds for viewing or
>stimulating them to sing for recordings). Four participants, including Da=
ve
>Lauten from Oregon and J. R. Fletcher (a former birding guide in the tropi=
cs)
>saw no harm with moderate use of recreational/commercial playback.
>Interestingly, participants on both sides of the issue condoned moderate
>playback use for scientific/management purposes, such as for separating
>"sibling" species of birds, documenting range extensions, or broadcasting
>distress calls to deter agricultural pests.
> So the controversy lay with recreational/commercial use, and democra=
cy
>would declare the "purists" (those against playback use) the winners. But
>this article isn't about democracy, so let's review the arguments. Those
>against recreational playback said it greatly disturbs birds, makes their
>behavior and vocalizations abnormal, and can harm their nesting and
>viability. Syd Curtis, an eloquent Aussie, admitted to having caused a ra=
re
>Albert Lyrebird "extreme distress" many years ago by bombarding it with it=
s
>own song. Doug Von Gausig stated that playback elicits "---fear and
>defensive reactions, and other uncommon, unnatural responses." and that "-=
--
>we (don't) have the right to inject these influences ---." Jim Morgan ci=
ted
>two Western Kingbirds that "--- became extremely agitated --- and then
>promptly left the area (after hearing playback)." Finally, Marty Michener
>expressed his views with "I have watched poor birders, repeatedly playing =
the
>same cuts to birds in the field, never even noticing the male (bird) has
>responded, but they are too yang-adrenaline-testosterone poisoned to even
>see." Obviously, playback raises the hackles on some people's necks.
> On the other side of the aisle, Dave Lauten argued that response to
>playback is "quite natural" He also suggested that man-made problems, fro=
m
>habitat loss to oil spills, put much more pressure on birds than does
>occasional playback. J. R. Fletcher (the former bird guide in Ecuador) sa=
id
>he saw no adverse effects among tropical birds from using recorded playbac=
k
>over many years. J. R. tested his thesis of no lasting effects by subject=
ing
>territorial males of seven temperate-zone species to playback. He found
>birds attracted to temporary playback usually took less than a minute to
>return to normal behavior. The extreme was a Hutton Vireo which gave an
>altered call for 30 minutes. On the other hand, individuals of five other
>species gave no response at all to playback.
> So what is the answer? Is playback harmful or not? Dave Lauten, T.
>Stephenson, and Alvin Cearley asked if anyone could cite an actual publish=
ed
>study on the subject. J. R. Fletcher said he knew of none, Jim Morgan sai=
d
>"I'm sure they can be found," and Doug Von Gausig suggested that such stud=
ies
>might be located where playback had been used to control pests (such as
>driving Starlings from airports). Aside from these inconclusive responses=
,
>however, the silence on actual studies was deafening.
> Now I had done a literature search, consulted my memory banks, and
>assimilated the opinions of some the best and brightest in the recording
>world, and to a great extent I still was back at square one. My last hope=
to
>make better sense of the issue lay in reviewing my own experiences as a
>researcher, bander, recordist, and watcher of birds.
> Initially let me say there are circumstances where I personally beli=
eve
>recreational/commercial playback should not be used. For example, recorde=
d
>playback is banned on the breeding grounds of the endangered Kirtland's
>Warbler in Michigan, and I would concur for three reasons. The ban might
>preclude the possibility that a birder (they flock to the area for guided
>tours) might place the Kirtland's on his or her life list based on hearing
>some other birder's Sony. The ban also might shield Fish and Wildlife
>Service bureaucrats from possible criticism that they were endangering
>Kirtland's Warbler reproduction or viability. Finally, since the Kirtland=
's
>is endangered, if there is any possibility that lots of tourists with tape
>recorders could disrupt normal breeding, then we should err on the side of
>caution. I also understand that playback of a certain owl species (possib=
ly
>the Whiskered Screech) is banned from a heavily touristed area of southern
>Arizona. Again, I would concur with what possibly is more of a courtesy t=
o
>the birder than to the bird. In general (as my opening vignette might
>suggest) we should practice utmost courtesy in using playback where other
>birders abound (minimally, yell "fore" before pressing the button).
> Courtesy to birders is one thing, but what about possible effects of
>playback on the birds themselves? We have established that opinions on th=
is
>are divided, and that there likely are few if any published studies on the
>matter. The fact that no such studies can be readily found might give us =
a
>clue, however. Scientists, like investors, seek the most return for their
>investment, and thus choose research projects that prior knowledge suggest=
s
>will give good results. For example, few scientists would search for the
>Sasquatch. If DNA testing on a recovered hair sample indicated an unknown
>species of ape, however, scientists likely would take up the search. Perh=
aps
>few if any scientists have tested long-term playback effects on birds beca=
use
>they have little a-priori evidence that such effects exist.
> During many years of field research with Wilson's and Orange-crowned
>Warblers I have seen no evidence for ill effects from playback. The birds
>responding to playback mainly are males (a fact also pointed out in the
>ethics thread), and those males tend to respond most strongly before matin=
g
>(and thus before nesting begins). Therefore, even if playback did cause
>adverse behavior in a male before mating, it likely would minimally affect
>the actual nesting process. Also, as Walt Knapp of the ethics thread poin=
ted
>out, even if a bird does respond strongly to playback, we cannot assume th=
at
>the response necessarily is detrimental. Speaking anthropomorphically, I
>agree with Walt that a strongly responsive male may just be getting practi=
ce
>and confidence in driving away intruders. I back his view with observatio=
ns.
> My older male warblers tend to hang back, responding to playback only wi=
th
>song, if at all. It seems they have been through it all before, and can d=
eal
>with any rival. New territorial birds, however, often show strong playbac=
k
>response. Until they have a few encounters and victories under their belt=
s,
>they tend to appear frantic (which tends to make them great subjects for m=
ist
>netting). So experience in dealing with intruder song (even playback) ma=
y
>be a good thing for a male bird.
> Another observation that has molded my opinion on playback is that
> rival
>male birds tend to have a hierarchy of response toward each other. Initia=
l
>response tends to be with song. If song does not settle a dispute (e.g., =
the
>location of a territorial border), then the conflicting males often stop
>singing and confront each other with chip notes and aggressive displays
>(conflicting Wilson's Warbler males often circle each other while flipping
>their wings). If things get real serious, males can end up in "claw-to-cl=
aw"
>combat, and I occasionally see two "locked" males flutter to the ground an=
d
>continue pecking at each other even while lying in the duff. The point he=
re
>is that, while inexperienced males may get their adrenalin up in respondin=
g
>aggressively to song, established males seem to regard song as just a firs=
t
>stage of aggression, and something they easily can deal with.
> Finally, the thing that most leads me to believe that hearing tempor=
ary
>playback likely has little lasting effect on birds is that, in addition to
>being a recordist, I also am a bird bander. Banding is an essential
>operation for many, perhaps most, avian field studies; only through color
>banding can one tell individual birds apart. Banding often means capturin=
g
>one's subjects in a mist net. I hope I do not offend those acutely attune=
d
>to the feelings of birds by revealing the details of an average netting an=
d
>banding operation. Elliot McClure, the Dean of American bird banding,
>expressed it bluntly in writing: "From the standpoint of the bird, the net=
is
>an abominable creation. Birds do not like to be netted." Imagine being
>snagged from mid air by a giant cobweb, having a massive predator descend =
on
>you, capture you, carry you off in a bag, then capture you again and tweak
>your every extremity before finally letting you go. If the pecking on one=
's
>hand doesn't suggest the bird is unhappy, then the struggling in the net, =
the
>bag, and in the hand should. This struggling sometimes leads to exhaustio=
n,
>and good banders are trained to see its first signs. When a bird's eyelid=
s
>begin to flutter, measurements cease and the bird is held softly in the ha=
nd
>as it "falls asleep." Within about 15 minutes the bird recovers, looks
>around, and flies away. Although likely confused, it is unhurt.
> Even though the process of netting and banding is stressful for a bi=
rd,
>only once have I seen a lasting behavioral effect. A female orange crown =
I
>netted while building her nest subsequently stopped building and abandoned
>her mate (never since have I netted a nest-building female). Otherwise, I
>have netted and banded hundreds of Orange-crowned and Wilson's Warblers an=
d
>not one male has abandoned its territory, and not one female has abandoned
>her eggs, following the process. Males resume singing, sometimes within t=
he
>hour but certainly by the next day, and females always return to their egg=
s
>within the hour. I also have seen no evidence that breeding success (e.g.=
,
>hatching rate, fledging rate) is harmed in any way.
> It is possible that the behavioral responses of some bird species ar=
e
>different from those of my warblers. However, I know of no official
>restrictions on banding any species based on known adverse behavioral
>responses (such as likely territorial abandonment). My master banding per=
mit
>allows for capture of "all species except waterfowl, eagles or endan
>gered/threatened species"
> The reason I have gone on and on about netting and banding is to
>emphasize how temporarily traumatic the experience is for a bird. However=
,
>if birds typically can survive netting and banding with no continuing
>effects, then hearing playback may be way down on a list of things that co=
uld
>cause a bird lasting problems. I believe other field ornithologists who m=
ist
>net and band would think similarly. This familiarity with the process of
>netting and banding, plus a general knowledge of bird behavior, may partia=
lly
>explain why scientists have been reluctant to study possible adverse playb=
ack
>effects. To quote J. R. Fletcher from the ethics thread: "(I) firmly beli=
eve
>them (birds) to be resilient scrappy beings quite able to take in stride f=
ar
>greater upset than an occasional spurious voice followed by a brief search
>for an intruder that turns out not to be there."
> Even though little if any research apparently has been directed towa=
rd
>the supposed dark side of playback, could such studies be designed to sett=
le
>the playback controversy? There would be many complicating factors, as Ma=
rty
>Michener pointed out in the ethics thread. Also, a direct test using norm=
al
>playback conditions probably would not work. What might work is to test
>extreme conditions of playback. One might start by issuing playback
>continually from dawn until dusk to territorial males of a given bird
>species. Control territories would receive no playback. If effects were
>evident (e.g., if playback males abandoned their territories or did not
>attract mates), then in the next series of tests one might reduce playback=
by
>50% (perhaps one hour on and one hour off during the day). Over a series =
of
>tests one might reduce playback frequency until there was no measurable
>effect on the birds. One might presume playback frequencies below that le=
vel
>to be "safe." Of course, to conduct such a lengthy, loud experiment one
>might need a large private wooded estate for a study area, preferably one
>patrolled by bloodthirsty Dobermans so playback equipment would not be
>vandalized. Your local park probably would not do.
> So that's the skinny on use of recorded playback, at least as I
>interpret it. Most concerned with this issue seem to support playback for
>scientific/management purposes, but not for recreational/commercial uses i=
n
>heavily touristed areas (especially where there are rare target species). =
A
>fairly even split of opinion exists, however, for the general use of
>recreational/commercial playback, and for whether that playback might
>compromise target species' reproduction, survival, and behavior. Efforts =
to
>locate published studies on the topic have come up empty. This apparent
>paucity of controlled research might seem surprising until viewed from the
>perspective of scientists best situated to carry out the studies. That su=
ch
>scientists apparently have minimal enthusiasm for the studies might sugges=
t
>minimal concern for the "problem."
> This discourse likely will not settle the recorded playback debate. =
I
>really have only entered my opinion into the mix, and given my reasons. E=
ven
>counting my vote in favor of moderate recreational/commercial playback use
>would still leave the tally at seven to five in favor of the "purists."
>Perhaps only a controlled study, possibly structured as I have indicated
>above, would start to put the debate on a more empirical basis. Until the=
n
>the question of whether or not playback should be used in the field, when,
>and under what circumstances, likely will remain mired in the sometimes
>contentious arena of personal opinion and anecdotal observation.
>
>
>Bill Gilbert
>
>
>*McClure, Elliott. 1988. Bird Banding. Pacific Grove, CA: The Boxwood Pres=
s
>(p. 189).
Doug Von Gausig
Clarkdale, Arizona, USA
Moderator
Nature Recordists e-mail group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|